Be careful what you wish for...

[dilloduck]

Are you BLONDE? Or ?

No but I would appreciate you telling me why you think I am instead of just flaming me.

 

[no1tovote4]

...since when does people objecting to laws make any difference? I object to 90% Of traffic laws...should I sue?

The difference would be the Constitutionality of the law. Since Congress is specifically prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of religion putting the first four into law would be directly in opposition to that. It isn't against your Constitutional rights to make traffic laws.

 

[manu1959]

The difference would be the Constitutionality of the law. Since Congress is specifically prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of religion putting the first four into law would be directly in opposition to that. It isn't against your Constitutional rights to make traffic laws.

if you put the first four into law which religion would it be endorsing?

 

[no1tovote4]

if you put the first four into law which religion would it be endorsing?

If you notice, I posted them above exactly as written in the Bible, you would be endorsing Judeo-Christian beliefs above others. Not only does it tell you which God to worship but specifically gives you directly a charge to only worship that specific God. This would be a clear endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs above all others.

 

[dmp]

The difference would be the Constitutionality of the law. Since Congress is specifically prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of religion putting the first four into law would be directly in opposition to that. It isn't against your Constitutional rights to make traffic laws.

I was leaning more towards "Not-liking a law doesn't make the law any less valid" - but re-looking, my comment doesn't really even make sense in terms of your entire post. I retract said comment now.

 

[no1tovote4]

I was leaning more towards "Not-liking a law doesn't make the law any less valid" - but re-looking, my comment doesn't really even make sense in terms of your entire post. I retract said comment now.

It's all good....

 

[dilloduck]

If you notice, I posted them above exactly as written in the Bible, you would be endorsing Judeo-Christian beliefs above others. Not only does it tell you which God to worship but specifically gives you directly a charge to only worship that specific God. This would be a clear endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs above all others.

If it weren't for the fact that these were taken out of one specific version of the Bible , these words could be construed to mean " Be true to the God of your choice". I guess only the atheist could claim oppression.

 

[manu1959]

If you notice, I posted them above exactly as written in the Bible, you would be endorsing Judeo-Christian beliefs above others. Not only does it tell you which God to worship but specifically gives you directly a charge to only worship that specific God. This would be a clear endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs above all others.

the country was founded on judeo christian beliefs....most of the laws and customs of the country are founded on the same beliefs.....so i still don't see the issue...

the punishment for not complying with 1-5 would be going to hell....big deal

 

[no1tovote4]

If it weren't for the fact that these were taken out of one specific version of the Bible , these words could be construed to mean " Be true to the God of your choice". I guess only the atheist could claim oppression.

It wouldn't matter which version of the Bible, It specifically defines the God as the one that led the Israelites from Egypt. That wasn't Shiva, it wasn't Mahayana Buddha, it wasn't Ahura Mazda, or the Goddess....

It actually defines the God which one is to worship above all others, and would be a specific and direct violation of the constitution.

 

[no1tovote4]

the country was founded on judeo christian beliefs....most of the laws and customs of the country are founded on the same beliefs.....so i still don't see the issue...

the punishment for not complying with 1-5 would be going to hell....big deal

The mention of Judeo-Christian beliefs was specifically left out of the Constitution in order to allow a plurality of beliefs in the country. To add them in later by legislating the first four of the commandments would be in direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Not seeing that issue is simply denying the whole idea of defining a God one must worship then putting it into law would be a violation of the Constitution as it would be respecting the establishment of a religion.

Amazing, I never thought I would actually be arguing this...

My original point of this is a lefty tactic of smokescreen because the SCOTUS would deny any such legislation still stands. Nobody in the US need fear that this could be or is in the works as even those in the Senate that sometimes make laws against the constitution in error know that this would violate that and would not want to alienate their constituency in such a way.

 

[manu1959]

The mention of Judeo-Christian beliefs was specifically left out of the Constitution in order to allow a plurality of beliefs in the country. To add them in later by legislating the first four of the commandments would be in direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Not seeing that issue is simply denying the whole idea of defining a God one must worship then putting it into law would be a violation of the Constitution as it would be respecting the establishment of a religion.

Amazing, I never thought I would actually be arguing this...

My original point of this is a lefty tactic of smokescreen because the SCOTUS would deny any such legislation still stands. Nobody in the US need fear that this could be or is in the works as even those in the Senate that sometimes make laws against the constitution in error know that this would violate that and would not want to alienate their constituency in such a way.

i agree.....couldn't have made the point better if i had agrued it my self

 

[no1tovote4]

i agree.....couldn't have made the point better if i had agrued it my self

AAAAAAARRRGG! The whole Devil's Advocate thing! Crap, why didn't I recognize it!

:funnyface